Dispelling Christianity with Homophones: The Son/Sun Conspiracy

reply to post by DeadSeraph


The depictions of Jesus have noor, not the sun, behind him... Noor means light, but in religious context it means knowledge or knowledge of God. When one speaks of the Light of God, he is speaking about the knowledge of God, or of God's path depending on context.

So, the pictures are a simple yet eloquent way to depict the Light of God with Jesus in picture form rather than words.

Basically the pictures say, "Jesus has the Knowledge of God behind His every action with the undercurrent of being the path to God." without once having to speak.

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God's glory displayed in the face of Christ.

DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by adjensen

 

Christianity is based on Sun Worship. Many religions are based on Sun Worship. In the end, it's all a bulls*** fairytale.

Thanks for reading the thread. Care to support your claim or refute the OP's? This post offers absolutely nothing constructive to the discussion.

That jesus theory is really funny. You know, as a Catholic I've looked at those pictures of him untold times and I have never thought about it as being the sun behind him.

We were taught very early on that it was based upon the transfiguration as mentioned in the new testament. But it just goes to show what a fresh and uneducated perspective cab pick up on.

Now I'm gonna have to apply sunscreen every time i look at ole J.C in case i get burnt

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Oh...well... I guess that settles it folks. I mean, all the evidence is right there in that post. It should be clear to everyone that there is a baseless agenda against Christianity. They don't require evidence. They want to hate Jesus, and hate Jesus they shall. I think they are mostly angered at the misguided FOLLOWERS of Jesus who do stupid things in his holy name, but why do the logical thing and point out that what most people are doing is the farthest thing from the teachings of Jesus when it's much easier to just hate Jesus and religion in general? Like most people they just take the lazy way out. They are like gun haters. They hate the inanimate object and not the people who misuse it. Religion can do nothing on its own. Someone has to pick it up and pull the trigger. And if religion didn't exist they would just use another "weapon" to commit their deed... philosophy, ufology, politics, health care, law & justice, education and academics... Some just prefer religion as their method of bull****tery to control and or extract money from the masses. Anything can be misused. Find me an error in Christ's MESSAGE and then we have a conversation.

chr0naut
The OP quite clearly debunks the idea that Jesus was the sun god. You don't seem to have grasped that concept.

No he hasn't, he debunked that there is no link to the word 'son' and 'sun'. That's not enough evidence to debunk for me.

Like I said, I believe that the story of Christ's life was altered to fit older sun-god religions, I'm not debunking the man, just his life and how his life has been changed to fit sun god religions for the conquering romans.

Please read my earlier comments.

reply to post by iRoyalty


What you are missing, concerning Judaism and then Christianity, is that the catholic church did things to incorporate the pagans.. ie: they wanted to let the pagans keep their holiday's but become Christian...

That is the doing of the catholic church... but not of Christianity itself. It is believed that Jesus was actually born sometime in June or July, but his birthday is celebrated on December the 25 because the Catholics wanted the pagans to be christian but still feel right at home, as if they never left their paganism...

They did this with all the christian holidays, however, what you would have to do, is prove that Judaism is based on sun god religions for your theories to hold water, rather than Christianity, because Christianity is simply Judaism which believes the Messiah came, in the form of Jesus.

What the Christians did with it after that does not literally reflect on the religion, just the people who decided to keep paganism and mix it with Christianity.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


I believe Christianity indeed is based on sun worship and it's roots can be found in the Osiris, Horus, Isis mythology. Isis is the perpetual virgin, who gives birth to the sun, who happens to be the son of Osirus, and is his own father.

The Tablet of Isis

Tradition teaches that the goddess ISIS was instructed by Hermes or Thoth, the god of magick, writing and words. By magick power ISIS promulgated writing and learning, caused men to love women, was the protectress of sailors and all vessels that sail the seas. She provided law and justice and instructed mankind in the sacred mysteries. In ISIS, truth is made perfect and beautiful. The inscription from her temple at Sais reads: “I am Isis, I am all that is, that has been, and that will be, and no mortal has ever yet withdrawn my veil.”

Then there's the Saitic Isis, by Plato where Plato reiterates the claim.

“I, Isis, am all that has been, that is or shall be; no mortal man hath ever me unveiled. The fruit which I have brought forth is the sun."

Here's a depiction of the God Thoth telling the Pharaoh Amenhept II, that his wife is miraculously pregnant, just like the story of the angel telling Joseph that is wife to be, Mary, is miraculously pregnant with a divine child.

reply to post by windword


I've already replied to your assertions in the other thread, please do not attempt to de-rail this one, as well. The topic of this thread is the misnomer that the English homophone of "sun" and "son", or that Catholic and Orthodox "light" iconography are significant, which they are not.

reply to post by adjensen


First of all, NO, you did not dispell my assertions in the other thread.

Secondly, in your OP you said that this thread was inspired by the other.

Third, my reply was to DeadSeraph, who said this

Anyone who wants to take even a cursory look at history and ancient egyptian mythology can find out for themselves that this commonly peddled farce is pure nonsense. It started with zeitgeist and seemed to take off from there, and for whatever reason people parrot it despite the fact it is easily debunked with a little research. For whatever reason, some will still cling to this dubious conspiracy theory even after it has been show

After quoting you saying this:

No, Horus wasn't born of a virgin -- Osiris, the father of Horus, was killed and chopped up into bits by Seth, who scattered the bits around Egypt. Isis, sister/wife of Osiris, gathered the pieces, put him back together, had sex with the remains and conceived Horus, who went on to avenge his father's death. Does that sound like he was born of a virgin?

No, Horus wasn't born of a virgin -- Osiris, the father of Horus, was killed and chopped up into bits by Seth, who scattered the bits around Egypt. Isis, sister/wife of Osiris, gathered the pieces, put him back together, had sex with the remains and conceived Horus, who went on to avenge his father's death. Does that sound like he was born of a virgin?

The injustice in this isn't the attempt to refute Christianity, which can stand up to it, but the intentional perversion of another peoples' stories in making that effort. Horus and his legends meant something to people, people who didn't believe that he was born of a virgin or crucified, because he wasn't.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So I contend that my reply IS on topic, and I'm not derailing your thread. I'm just not letting you assume a victory that you haven't earned.

Isis IS the perpetual virgin, "who no man hath unveiled".

reply to post by windword


Like I said, please stop trying to derail other threads.

This thread is in regards to the "Sun/Son" misnomer, please stick to the topic.

@op.... To hold that similar sounding words in 2 unrelated languages point to the same thing is third rate scholarship. Then there are those who use verses with Jesus containing certain words such as ''light'', ''shine'', ''sun'' etc. as proof of their claims. (There was a heavily flagged thread on the same subject sometime ago). What they are doing is isolating Jesus from his Isrselite heritage and religion that he preached and practised. Jesus was ONE of a long line of Israelite prophets, so if ''Jesus'' was actually based on the ''sun worship'', then his Israelite religion that he kept referring to had to be based on sun worship as well, but it wasn't. Instead Jesus taught that the sun is indifferent to good and bad people. Which totally invalidates any idea that ''Jesus'' was about sun worship.

reply to post by adjensen


Well, the argument has been made that the Jesus story is based on Horus mythology. Horus is a Sun God, In order to honestly address the issue of Jesus being a Sun God, in the likeness of Horus, one must examine the Horus mythology in relation to the Jesus story.

I think it's necessary to first established whether or not the Jesus story emulated the Horus mythology before looking at the sun/son coincidence. The similarities are too numerous to just dismiss.

adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

Like I said, please stop trying to derail other threads.

This thread is in regards to the "Sun/Son" misnomer, please stick to the topic.

I'll take the heat for that one. I sort of injected it into this conversation since I consider the two misconceptions related.

TextThe Bible was not written in English. If you only learn one thing today, please make it this. Any argument against the Bible or Christianity that relies on the English language for its basis, whether the "Son/Sun" nonsense, or the real meaning of the word "Easter", is automatically an invalid argument, because you can't put your case on something that didn't exist until centuries after both Christianity and the Bible were well established.

reply to post by adjensen


Very well stated adjensen,

I am quite old now and have not recall of a young man but in my memory bank (somewhere in that dark matter) I have the remembrance of why not only Jesus but also some of the early paintings of particular church people had a light either behind them or above their heads. Was it not because in the days of earlier Christianity that Rome had several gods and as they accepted Christianity as the national God they put Jesus in the forefront of their other gods? If I am correct the light behind the painting of Jesus depicts Rome as accepting Jesus as the foremost deity and even above the sun.

I believe also that the early Jews practiced lunar time instead of solar time simply because the sun was not to be worshiped as the life giver above God. In Jewish anthology I believe also that during the first three+ days of creation, God was the giver of life (primeval light) and it was for this reason that He created our sun (star) as our life sustainer.

Also, in the first Christian Jerusalem Church the liturgy was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew. The Greek speaking Jews were embraced into their congregation some time later. Torah was the only source of so called bible that they used. The prophets and writings came to be canonized along with Torah at a much later time in history. This church is where the apostles and disciples of Jesus taught and preached. They had no new testament simply because they were the new testament. There is more and more evidence to show that the apostles did write their letters in Aramaic and Hebrew and these were eventually copied into the Greek languages that we see today.

If Christians want a clear understanding of Christianity they would do well to study the early true church from the death of Jesus to 135 CE and not the Roman church organizations.

adjensen
reply to post by windword

 

Like I said, please stop trying to derail other threads.

This thread is in regards to the "Sun/Son" misnomer, please stick to the topic.

You made an entire thread just to de-bunk the sun and son being a coincidence? No one was using that as solid proof.

You really don't want to hear other arguments based on the sun-god theory? That makes for an awfully closed thread, you should let debate come from this, you are very adamant that there is no possibility that Jesus's story may have been based on a sun-god religion, and I'm interested to hear why.

reply to post by iRoyalty

You made an entire thread just to de-bunk the sun and son being a coincidence? No one was using that as solid proof.

Yes, sadly, they do. They're idiots, but I have seen people claim that "Son/Sun" means something, and is backed up by Catholic and Orthodox iconography that shows Jesus "with the sun behind him."

Re-read the OP -- debunking those claims is the purpose of this thread. If you want to debate Jesus being a "sun god" beyond the scope of the homophone and iconography, feel free to create your own thread to do so.

adjensen
reply to post by iRoyalty

 

Yes, sadly, they do. They're idiots, but I have seen people claim that "Son/Sun" means something, and is backed up by Catholic and Orthodox iconography that shows Jesus "with the sun behind him."

Really?? My god.. So this was an angry "seriously guys?" kind of thread?

adjensen
Re-read the OP -- debunking those claims is the purpose of this thread. If you want to debate Jesus being a "sun god" beyond the scope of the homophone and iconography, feel free to create your own thread to do so.

OK, I just got carried away because I have never had the opportunity to vocalise these thoughts to someone who perhaps has a better understanding of the bible than I do.

I hope you will contribute to my thread after I have gained some information to put in it.

Mettā ~

reply to post by iRoyalty

Really?? My god.. So this was an angry "seriously guys?" kind of thread?

Well, not "angry", more a case of being tired of hearing the argument over and over.

I occasionally make threads like this in order to reference them in the future -- when I hear someone make the "Son/Sun" claim on ATS going forward, I can now just link them to this thread instead of writing up a "you're an idiot, and here's why" reply.

I hope you will contribute to my thread after I have gained some information to put in it.

If I have something useful to add, I will.

reply to post by adjensen


www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you're interested.

reply to post by adjensen

The topic of this thread is the misnomer that the English homophone of "sun" and "son"............ are significant, which they are not.

For what it's worth, It does appear that the word "son" is derived from and is intrinsically related to the word "sun".

The English word 'son' derives from the Sanskrit 'suna' (सून). English dictionaries are quick to say that the word 'son' derives from 'PIE' 'sunu' .
vediccafe.blogspot.com...

spokensanskrit.de...

sun (n.)
Old English sunne "sun," from Proto-Germanic *sunnon (cf. Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old High German sunna, Middle Dutch sonne, Dutch zon, German Sonne, Gothic sunno "the sun"), from PIE *s(u)wen- (cf. Avestan xueng "sun," Old Irish fur-sunnud "lighting up"), alternative form of root *saewel- "to shine; sun"
www.etymonline.com...

son (n.)
Old English sunu "son, descendant," from Proto-Germanic *sunuz (cf. Old Saxon and Old Frisian sunu, Old Norse sonr, Danish søn, Swedish son, Middle Dutch sone, Dutch zoon, Old High German sunu, German Sohn, Gothic sunus "son"). The Germanic words are from PIE *su(e)-nu- "son" (cf. Sanskrit sunus, Greek huios, Avestan hunush, Armenian ustr, Lithuanian sunus, Old Church Slavonic synu, Russian and Polish syn "son"), a derived noun from root *seue- (1) "to give birth" (cf. Sanskrit sauti "gives birth," Old Irish suth "birth, offspring").

www.etymonline.com...